The switch from proton to lead ion collisions at the LHC has set new records in temperature and density. The temperature - a million times higher than in the interior of the sun - is the highest ever achieved artificially and believed to be the highest temperatures in nature since the first moments of the big bang over 13.7 billion years ago.

The risk of heavy ion experiments includes the possible production of “strangelets”. CERN scientists hope to find strangelets which they consider to be unstable and therefore harmless.Physics Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek considered Starangelet-risk (“ICE-9-reaction“) from particle accelerators to be higher than the risk from black holes, though - like CERN - regarding both risks to be extremely small or proclaiming them to be zero.

A strangelet is a hypothetical form of matter in which quarks in extreme conditions regroup and form a very dense matter, “strange matter”. If a strangelet remains stable, it would convert any other matter it contacts into strange matter.In the worst case scenario it would convert earth into a dense ball with a 20 km diameter.

Independent, multi-disciplinary risk assessment - as a minimum requirement of accountability, is still lacking in this new category of high-energy physics experiments such as the LHC.

Nevertheless, another heavy ion collider, the billion Euro project FAIR, is planned to be build in Darmstadt (Germany) and also the NICA collider in Russia (2015). This is very questionable from a scientific point of view as well, since the LHC has just started with ion collisions and is planned to be adapted very costly in 2012 to reach even much higher than present energies. Last but not least, for our stressed society, there is no concrete benefit to expect from this research. One might ask if physicists have got the best lobby in Europe presently.

The critics group ‘Heavy Ion Alert’ provides a detailed report to the strangelet-risk:

Please consider the request to You and the critical summary of the LHC (CERN) risk debate with many scientific sources below.Because of several reasons mentioned below, critics speak against any operation of the LHC at unprecedented energies.If the LHC experiments should be started, we urgently ask you to speak for a safer step by step start up, after profound analyses of the results at each increase of collision energies.

International critics of the high energy experiments planned to start soon at the particle accelerator LHC at CERN in Geneva have submitted a request to the Ministers of Science of the CERN member states and to the delegates to the CERN Council, the supreme controlling body of CERN.

The paper states that several risk scenarios - that have to be described as global or existential risks - cannot currently be excluded. Under present conditions, the critics have to speak out against an operation of the LHC.

The submission includes assessments from expertises in the fields markedly missing from the physicist-only LSAG safety report - those of risk assessment, law, ethics and statistics. Further weight is added because these experts are all university-level experts – from Griffith University, the University of North Dakota and Oxford University respectively. In particular, it is criticised that CERN’s official safety report lacks independence – all its authors have a prior interest in the LHC running and that the report uses physicist-only authors, when modern risk-assessment guidelines recommend risk experts and ethicists as well.

As a precondition of safety, the request calls for a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment and additional astrophysical experiments – Earth based and in the atmosphere – for a better empirical verification of the alleged comparability of particle collisions under the extreme artificial conditions of the LHC experiment and relatively rare natural high energy particle collisions: “Far from copying nature, the LHC focuses on rare and extreme events in a physical set up which has never occurred before in the history of the planet. Nature does not set up LHC experiments.”

Even under greatly improved circumstances concerning safety as proposed above, big jumps in energy increase, as presently planned by a factor of three compared to present records, without carefully analysing previous results before each increase of energy, should principally be avoided.

The concise “Request to CERN Council and Member States on LHC Risks” (Pdf with hyperlinks to the described studies) by several critical groups, supported by well known critics of the planned experiments:

International critics of the high energy experiments planned to start soon at the particle accelerator LHC at CERN in Geneva have submitted a request to the Ministers of Science of the CERN member states and to the delegates to the CERN Council, the supreme controlling body of CERN.The paper states that several risk scenarios (that have to be described as global or existential risks) cannot currently be excluded. Under present conditions, the critics have to speak out against an operation of the LHC.

The submission includes assessments from expertises in the fields markedly missing from the physicist-only LSAG safety report - those of risk assessment, law, ethics and statistics. Further weight is added because these experts are all university-level experts – from Griffith University, the University of North Dakota and Oxford University respectively. In particular, it is criticised that CERN’s official safety report lacks independence – all its authors have a prior interest in the LHC running and that the report uses physicist-only authors, when modern risk-assessment guidelines recommend risk experts and ethicists as well.

As a precondition of safety, the request calls for a neutral and multi-disciplinary risk assessment and additional astrophysical experiments – Earth based and in the atmosphere – for a better empirical verification of the alleged comparability of particle collisions under the extreme artificial conditions of the LHC experiment and relatively rare natural high energy particle collisions: “Far from copying nature, the LHC focuses on rare and extreme events in a physical set up which has never occurred before in the history of the planet. Nature does not set up LHC experiments.”

Even under greatly improved circumstances concerning safety as proposed above, big jumps in energy increase, as presently planned by a factor of three compared to present records, without carefully analysing previous results before each increase of energy, should principally be avoided.

The concise “Request to CERN Council and Member States on LHC Risks” (Pdf with hyperlinks to the described studies) by several critical groups, supported by well known critics of the planned experiments:

CERN LHC lawsuit was not accepted for decision by German Constitutional Court

[For mainly German info and more backgrounds please additionally see here.
The summary below does not exist in German by now.]

The German Institutional Court today refused to accept an appeal for interim measures to limit the energies of the giant particle accelerator LHC at 1 TeV per beam. This means that the case was not accepted for decision by the court and that it is confident with a lower court’s negative decision. Though there is a quite detailed case justification.

This time the problems are the physics, not jurisdiction:

In the argumentation of the court it says the plaintiff (a female German citizen living in Switzerland) “beyond her general mistrust towards physical laws could not conclusively demonstrate a threat of destruction of the Earth.”

This is astonishing because the case included physical descriptions of the risks. Now it seems like the court would have needed more detailed physical expertise. On the other hand, pure physics naturally are also not suitable for a court.

It is further said that it is not the duty of the German state or the court to examine on possible dangers. First it has to be clearly demonstrated that there are any.

In the definition of the so-called accepted scientific standards the court fully followed the argumentation in the CERN safety report (LSAG) - as this is repeated in a report of an individual physicist to the German Bundestag (parliament). This apparently is regarded as sufficient precautionary measures done by the federal government.

As the main reason for the rejection it is stated that the complaint had failed to demonstrate conclusively possible (concrete) dangers in “alternative theories” and that the physical arguments put forward in the presentation are too vague.

The refusal of the German Constitutional Court maybe could increase the chances of human rights complaints on international level (though such courts are generally more reserved in taking action), because not exhausted national remedies are a main reason for rejection. Just a view days ago, this was the main argument of the UN Human Rights Committee not to accept an exhaustive complaint by the LHC critical group “ConCERNed International”: www.conCERNed-international.com

Beside, also other complaints on national level (taking 1-2 years) are still possible.

Nevertheless, time is short and the CERN member states have got the duty to ensure citizens’ safety. This does not function if they only rely on the argumentation of the operator CERN and on courts’ decisions in favour of this argumentation. Further, lacks in the argumentation of plaintiffs could occur on many different levels and several expectancies are hardly forseeable.

The beginning of this section summarized the present uncertainties about whether black holes are stable or radiate, how fast they might radiate, and whether they might be charged or must all be neutral. Given these uncertainties, a reasonably cautious approach would be to avoid black hole production if even one of these cases carries an unacceptable risk. The above review has shown, however, that almost all of these cases pose unacceptable risks to the planet. In such a situation, there can be little doubt that black hole production at the LHC would be an unacceptable and irresponsible risk.”

Legal expert Prof. Eric E. Johnson (University of North Dakota) profoundly analyses the discourse on dangers and risks at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operated by the European Organization of Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland in a new independent and critical study.

His multi-disciplinary perspective covers legal and socio-psychological aspects (“groupthink”) and also reflects the physical discussion in many details:

“Even a tiny chance of a black-hole catastrophe could be very significant as matter of equity before a court. The alleged downside, after all, is the disappearance of our planet down a cosmic drain. From my perspective as a lawyer, sizing up the merits of the case, I find the assurances provided by the particle-physics community to be quite lacking. In particular, I am struck by the fact that the safety assurances are based on scientific work that brazenly lacks independence.”

“…the history of the black-hole debate leaves me uneasy. There is a repeating pattern of airtight assurances—presented with utter conviction—that are quietly abandoned later when the scientific bedrock upon which they are based suddenly erodes.”

“My argument is one of law. My conviction is that, when a black-hole case arrives on a docket, no court should abdicate its role as a bursar of equity, even where, as here, the socio-political pressure to abstain will be immense, the factual terrain will be intensely intellectually challenging, and the jurisprudential conundrums are legion. At the end of the day, whether the LHC represents an intolerable danger is, in my view, an open question. I have not endeavored to provide a definitive answer. But I think the courts should. […] Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law—just when we need it most.”

Over all, this new 90-page study provides well structured and strong evidences that several concrete disaster scenarios cannot be excluded to arise from the big bang machine and thus have to be taken very seriously by scientific and political decision makers and the public. Especially, the paper provides important orientation to courts and for further studies. As a scientific document, it is now without doubt central in the LHC risk debate.

Recently, an international group of critics and experts filed a detailed complaint at the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations at Geneva concerning risks and dangers of the planned experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). A law suit filed at the European Court of Human Rights is pending, another at the German Constitutional Court, an American case is in appeal.

Risk assessment expert and ethicist Dr. Mark Leggett concludes in a recent study, that the CERN safety report is, “from a number of authoritative standpoints, out of date”, “has a conflict of interest” and satisfies less than a fifth of the expectable criteria. Chaos theory pioneer Prof. Otto E. Roessler estimates the risk of a black hole disaster at 15% if the experiment should continue as planned. Astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga in well respected studies insistently talks about a “residual risk”. Well known physicist Dr. Tony Rothman suggests a permanent mechanism to deal with science and new technology concerns. Leading risk researcher Prof. Wolfgang Kromp supports a special environmental impact assessment of the LHC. Famous “thinker of speed” Prof. Paul Virilio strongly criticizes the experiment. Scientists from the “Future of Humanity Institute” of the University of Oxford conclude in a study that the CERN safety report cannot be the last word in the case.

Further info and contact to LHC-critical groups having filed law suits concerning LHC dangers:

Legal expert Prof. Eric Johnson (University of North Dakota) profoundly analyses the dangers and risks at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operated by the European Organization of Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerlandin a new independent study.

His multi-disciplinary perspective covers legal and socio-psychological aspects and also reflects the physical discourse in many details:

“Even a tiny chance of a black-hole catastrophe could be very significant as matter of equity before a court. The alleged downside, after all, is the disappearance of our planet down acosmic drain.From my perspective as a lawyer, sizing up the merits of the case, I find the assurances provided by the particle-physics community to be quite lacking. In particular, I am struck by the fact that the safety assurances are based on scientific work that brazenly lacks independence.”

“…the history of the black-hole debate leaves me uneasy. There is a repeating pattern of airtight assurances—presented with utter conviction—that are quietly abandoned later when the scientific bedrock upon which they are based suddenly erodes.”

“My argument is one of law. My conviction is that, when a black-hole case arrives on a docket, no court should abdicate its role as a bursar of equity, even where, as here, the socio-political pressure to abstain will be immense, the factual terrain will be intensely intellectually challenging, and the jurisprudential conundrums are legion. At the end of the day, whether the LHC represents an intolerable danger is, in my view, an open question. I have not endeavored to provide a definitive answer. But I think the courts should. […] Otherwise, the wildly expanding sphere of human knowledge will overwhelm the institution of the courts and undo the rule of law—just when we need it most.”

Over all, this new 90-page study provides well structured and strong evidence that several concrete disaster scenarios arise from the big bang machine which have to be taken very seriously by scientific and political decision makers and the public. Especially, the paper providesimportant orientation to courts and for further studies.

After a year of repairs and redesign of some LHC safety systems due to a massive equipment failure, the LHC is on track to inject circulating beams in November. Beam collisions might start this December. With no advance announcement of the tests unlike last year’s fanfare, CERN’s new low profile demonstrates more care and caution at least when it comes to media fallout. CERN’s official announcement today:

LHC critics announce a new complaint will be filed soon at the United Nations to stop the LHC until proven safe.

A comprehensive and detailed new human rights complaint to the UN at Geneva, worked out by well-known critics and specialists, relying upon the work of specialists in black holes and cosmic rays, particle physics and risk researchers and several experts in international law, will be published soon. The UN-communication clearly demonstrates weaknesses in CERN safety assessments and concrete dangers arising from the planned high-energy experiments at the LHC.

The complaint demands an external risk evaluation and study of the latest relevant cosmic ray and other empirical data that bears upon LHC safety considerations. The legal aspects are focused on the special responsibility of Switzerland and France (by territory principle and CERN-council membership) and the other CERN member states not to insure LHC safety. This complaint is supported by a wide group of international critics of the planned “big bang experiment”. A press release will follow when published.Requests: Markus Goritschnig MA

Prof. Otto E. Rössler: “Is CERN about to trigger the worst imaginable accident with an odds of 1 to 6 ?”

“Abstract

Some almost desperate thoughts about a denied dialog in science are presented. They have some historical interest in view of the fact that similar admonitions went unheeded a year ago. Put in a nutshell, they read: “Black holes have different properties than previously thought, being both indestructible and capable of self-organization in the form of mini-quasars.“ Hence the earth may be shrunk to 2 cm in 50 months time if mini-black holes are produced as hoped for by CERN in the planned LHC experiment. This terrifying prediction is based on a new result in general relativity (gothic-R theorem) that goes non-disproved for more than two years. The equally old, unavoidably handwaving, 1 to 6 estimate published more than a year ago goes unchallenged, too. Unless a scientific safety conference is convened before the planned launch in two months time, the most dismal danger imaginable – planetocaust – is consciously risked for the second time in a row. Any child on the planet has the right to speak up. Not listening to the most feeble voice will amount to the most rightist crime of history. Conversely, this misdeed if prevented gives rise to a whole new planet.
(September 6, 2009)”
[…]

“3) Volatility. The third parable is a stalling car in the pitch of the night: Better not light a match to know for sure there is no gas in the tank! The Large Hadron Collider of CERN is the match.

The preceding three proverbial examples make it compellingly clear that the requested safety conference cannot stay unconvened for the second time in a row.”

We have got the honour to (pre-)publish a new and highly relevant study concerning the LHC-safety debate from Dr. Mark Leggett, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University, Australia:

The well-published Australian scientist and safety expert Dr. Mark Leggett has been involved with the particle collider risk question for a number of years.In a new study not yet submitted to the literature he has assessed the LSAG report, not as a physics analysis, but as a safety analysis.This is done by assessing the structure, method and content of the LSAG report against a survey of current recommendations for best practice safety analyses.

The study shows thatthe LSAG report has less than a quarter of the elementsthat would be present if current recommendations forbest-practice safety assessments were followed as shown in the survey.The Australian analysis has been provided to “LHC Critique” and the international critics community to assist further steps in the constructive handling of the LHC experiment.

“This assessment shows that the CERN process satisfied only 18 per cent of the criteria in the table.” (Dr. Mark Leggett: “Review of the risk assessment process used for the 2008 LHC safety study“, p. 7)

Conclusion:

“The process used to produce and review the LSAG reports on the LHC risk can be seen to be, from a number of authoritative standpoints, out of date. Further, as the analogue of the regulator, CERN Council has a conflict of interest, and is under-constituted to assess such a novel, potentially catastrophic and therefore sensitive risk.On this basis, a new review panel based on best practice for such panels should be set up to advise national, EU, and governments worldwide on the adequacy or otherwise of the LSAG report, and the LHC not operate until that panel has reported.” (p. 9)

The Austrian chancellor (SPÖ, social democrats) did not agree on the well worked-out and reasonable plan of the ministery of science (ÖVP, conservative peoples party) to withdraw from CERN…

———————-

!!! MAY 7, 2009: AUSTRIA QUITS CERN-MEMBERSHIP !!!

OFFICIAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE SCIENCE MINISTER: COST-BENEFIT-RELATION IS NOT APROPRIATE

See on the blog down below on the main site for actual comments and links!

-

This is only speculation, but I am quite sure there are more reasons than the ones officially stated. Why would you spend millions on the LHC-project and then withdraw just before the planned start of the “greatest experiment in the history of mankind”? Probably not only for budget reasons or other research interests…The giant collider risk is significant enough for any reasonable person who takes a look at the scientific risk discussion!Thanks so much to the international critical community for all the work and the scientists articulating the risk! Austria will not be subject of our human rights complaint any more!On Monday, May 11 2009 CERN-Director Rolf-Dieter Heuer will visit Vienna and Austrian science minister Johannes Hahn will explain his decision.

On a management meeting this Monday (Feb 9) CERN decided on the time plan to restart the LHC.

It was intended that the management accepts a recommendation to run the LHC already at the energy of 5 TeV (Tera - Elektron Volt in English, Tera-Elektronenvolt in German) - this is 70% of the LHC’s potential power - in September / October 2009. This would be 5 times more energy for each proton-beam than ever achieved before. This means the total energy would result in 10 TeV(!) at the collision point. The full power of 14 TeV is planed for 2010.In a recent CERN press-release it says that: “CERN’s priority for 2009 is to get collision data for the experiments, but with caution as the guiding principle.” This “caution as the guiding principle” obviously seems to refer only to the safety for the Big Bang Machine. CERN does not even mention all the new studies and the recent risk-debate on the LHC.
In no way the word “caution” refers to the safety of humans and nature in the CERN press-release from Friday: www.cern.chFirst summaries from the CERN-meeting today can be found here:http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/02/09/cern-management-confirms-new-lhc-restart-schedule/

The critics of the LHC-project ask why CERN and the member states do not initiate a broad interdisciplinary and external risk-evaluation - for example. A summary of just the latest news about the LHC includes a new study of well known physicists, stating that “the expected decay times [of Micro Black Holes produced at the LHC] are much longer (and possibly >> 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models, as was first shown in Ref.4.”, a very critical statement of the famous “philosopher of speed” Paul Virilio, a newly revised study of Prof. Otto Rossler or a study of Ord et al., ‘Future of Humanity Institute’, University of Oxford: “While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processes in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report.
However, our analysis implies that the current safety report should not be the final word in the safety assessment of the LHC.”

Please see below for further details and recent news and press-infos.

————————

Press-Info ‘LHC-Kritik’, February 8, 2009

On a management meeting tomorrow Monday CERN wants to decide about the time plan to restart the LHC. It is intended that the management accepts a recommendation to run the LHC already at 5 TeV (70%) this year (September 2009). This would be 5 times more energy for each proton-beam than ever achieved before. This means the total energy would result in 10 TeV(!) at the collision point.

In an actual CERN press-release it says that: “CERN’s priority for 2009 is to get collision data for the experiments, but with caution as the guiding principle.” This “caution as the guiding principle” obviously seems to refer only to the safety for the Big Bang Machine.CERN does not even mention all the new studies and the recent risk-debate on the LHC.

The Citizens Against the Large Hadron Collider, which has been involved in litigation with the Center for Nuclear Energy Research [CERN] and the US Department of Energy, announces the filing on February 2, 2009 of the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the case of Sancho v. DOE, et al., US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals #08-17389 [US District Court #1:08-cv-00136-HG-KSC].

The thrust of the brief pertains to the issue used for dismissal of the action by the honorable Helen Gilmor, the trial court judge in Honolulu, in which she erroneously concluded she lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Her dismissal was based on the legal concept of what constitutes a “major federal action”, in which she concluded that the expenditure of $531 million over the course of 11+ years of US DOE involvement did not constitute a major federal action because the US involvement was at about only 10% of the total LHC budget. The Appellants’ brief cites extensive case law which seems to show that the lengthy duration of the US DOE involvement, from start to finish [commencing with the signing of an “Agreement” with CERN in 1997], with a very large dollar amount, shows that the DOE involvement was a “major federal action” and that she in fact has jurisdiction.

The responding brief from the appellees [DOE, Amici Curiae] is due March 6, 2009, whereupon the appellants may file a Reply brief within fourteen days thereafter.

refuses the theory of Otto Rossler and does not mention any of the other theories concerning the LHC-risk at all (Plaga, Casadio et al., Oxford-study of Odd et al., etc.). Instead he mentions the Russian physicist Grigory Vilkovisky, an author who has not been very much in the center of the debate until now about catastrophic risks emerging from Micro-Black-Holes at the LHC.

On the other hand, he emphasizes the increasing problem of non-regulation of scientific safety issues:

“It is perhaps time that some permanent and impartial mechanism be established to deal with scientific safety issues. The LHC is far from the first scientific project to raise public alarm. Walter Wagner himself filed a similar lawsuit in 2000 to prevent the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory from being turned on. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the public frequently protested recombinant DNA and low-level electromagnetic radiation. Nuclear power has been a constant source of public protest and more recently wind farms. We must expect that that in the years to come scientific safety issues will arise ever more frequently.“

[…]

“A few years ago, Grigory Vilkovisky, a Russian physicist, published a trilogy of papers claiming that if one properly took this effect into account, black holes would evaporate only about half their mass; the rest would remain. If Vilkovisky’s conclusion is correct, it would not only radically alter our ideas of black-hole physics, but would have a tremendous impact on our ideas about dark matter and would pave way for the possibility that any black holes created at CERN might actually survive long enough to be taken seriously.“

Beside, Tony Rothman criticizes the media concerning Otto Rossler. I don’t agree with him in this point for several reasons (regardless if he has read the newly revised study of Rossler or not). The insufficiency of many media reports in this issue is worth an own discussion. Most of the times, a typical “media-hype” merely is about totally unworthy topics. Entertainment is what counts. Still, a public debate could at least challenge physics or the science of risk-evaluation to take a look at the planned experiments with most extensive care.

Otto Rossler was the first scientist opening the safety concerns about the big bang machine to a wider public. But until now - even after our effort to describe the various relevant scientific sources in our complaints, there are hardly any - or simply no real journalistic reports profoundly summarizing the risk-debate. Mainly it is only like: “There are some critics of the LHC, fearing this and that. Most scientists deny…” This might be understandable for average daily newspapers. But within the last 10 days or so, there was the new study of Casadio et al., the strongly critical statement of the famous “philosoher of speed” Paul Virilio, the profound article of Mark Buchanan about the Oxford-risk-study in the ‘New Scientist’ and the newly revised study of Otto Rossler. All these are very relevant approaches but did one hear anything about a “media-hype” concerning the LHC? And what about the science journals? (Well, the ‘Scientific American’ has just mentioned the “resurfacing” debate.) At least scientifically, we must take this issue very seriously.

But Tony Rothman also criticizes the physicist community for their behavior.

There is a new study of Roberto Casadio, Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms, submitted on 19 Jan 2009: “On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC”, stating that “the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly ≫ 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models”.

Suddenly a couple of new events in the risk-debate about CERN’s LHC appear:

Apart from the statement of the philosopher Paul Virilio (see below), the physicist and author Mark Buchanan in the NEW SCIENTIST writes about a brand new study of the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. This study could be an important step in the current debate.

Quotes below are taken from the mentioned article in the New Scientist: “How do we know the LHC really is safe?” 21 January 2009 by Mark Buchanan:

Mark Buchanan: “In a spectacular (and intentional) understatement, the physicists who first tried to put numbers on such risks - then in the context of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, New York, a predecessor to the LHC - referred to potentially “profound implications for health and safety”. Invoking quantum chromodynamics, what we know about the gravitational conditions for creating black holes, and our knowledge of near-Earth high-energy collisions due to cosmic rays, they put the chances of a “dangerous event” at around 10-9 per year.
That sounds pretty safe, and similarly small or smaller numbers have been cited for the LHC. But as Ord’s team argues, this is not as reassuring as it seems: that’s because this figure represents the chance of a dangerous event only if the physicists’ argument is correct. What if it isn’t?”[…]“From a probabilistic point of view, Ord and colleagues point out, we cannot just accept this as the best estimate. The real probability is:(X × PX) + (Y × PY)that is, X multiplied by the probability (PX) that the argument is correct, plus the probability the argument is wrong (PY) multiplied by the chance (Y) that the event will happen if the argument is wrong.”[…]“In other words, conclusions about extraordinarily small probabilities require equally extraordinary care.”[…]“Back to the LHC. Many people, me included, find the most convincing argument for the safety of the collider comes from considering the energy densities frequently created by cosmic rays colliding with particles in the Earth’s atmosphere or elsewhere. If the LHC is likely to be dangerous, we should long since have been annihilated. Even so, as convincing as this is, the same problem recurs. The argument has to be more than convincing: we have to be sure there is only the tiniest chance we could be wrong - which is much harder to establish.”[…]“Ord and his colleagues rightly stress that further elaboration of the arguments for the safety of the LHC might well reduce the chance of the overall argument for its safety being wrong. But until this kind of work has been done, they suggest, the current safety report cannot be seen as the final word, which seems entirely reasonable to me.
This is an area where it is crucial to focus on the logic, because our intuitions are no help. Most of us, I suspect, have a gut feeling that certain things “could never happen” and that “people who worry about this are crazy”. Sadly, the fact that we haven’t destroyed ourselves yet is no guarantee that we never will.
It’s easy for any of us to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty. We generally strive to become aware of what former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously called the “known knowns” and the “known unknowns”, but are perilously ignorant of the “unknown unknowns”, and, worse, blithely unaware of our own ignorance. This becomes particularly dangerous when it hides flaws in an argument we are relying on for reassurance that potentially catastrophic events are virtually impossible.It’s easy to be seduced by the nature of logical thinking and its illusion of certainty.It is perhaps an ultimate irony of our human longing for certainty that no amount of effort can definitively prove anything, for we can never discount the possibility that we have made a mistake, and if we enlist others to help us, they too may make mistakes.” […]Physicist and author Mark Buchanan in the actual issue of the New Scientist:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126926.800-how-do-we-know-the-lhc-really-is-safe.html?full=trueThe remarkable 18-page-study of the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, is available here:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.5515.pdfLater on we will also comment on another new text (January 20, 2009) concerning the question of global regulation and juridical aspects in the CERN / LHC debate:http://globaladminlaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-administrative-law-and-end-of.htmlRequests:Markus Goritschnig MASpokesman LHC-KritikGoritschnig {@} LHC-concern.infoTel.: +43 650 629 627 5www.LHC-concern.info

———————————

January 21 2009

Paul Virilio to CERN / LHC

One of the most famous philosophers of our time,the Frenchman Paul Virilio, is extremely critical of the physics high-energy experiments plannned at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva.

In a TV documentary devoted to him yesterday evening on ARTE “Paul Virilio: Thinker of Speed” (Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 22:45), he said: “With what right does one experimentwith the absolute speed to maybe discover the Higgs particle, to bring the Higgs in sight, with what right? We do not know what is possible - but we know that in theory, a black hole is possible. Here we are confronted with a central philosophical question in natural justice: Who gives the power to try out something totally unknown, with an absolute risk? The black hole, the complete disappearance of a zone, of matter, and so on. This is one of the big questions in connection with what I consider to be the ‘accident of knowledge’.” […]

“One could argue that currently reason derails. That is the ‘accident of knowledge’.” […] “We like to talk about ‘ratio’ [rationality], in fact we are in transition to irrationality.” […] “Following Heidegger we find that technology has replaced metaphysics, so we can only say [ironically]: Thank you, this is indeed a ‘good’ message …”This is the German version of the above translated part of the documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLW9L29n0nA

————————

January 2/3, 2009

Prof. Rössler releases his reinterpretation of the Schwarzschild metric and Black Holes with a newly ‘added in proof’, reacting to several criticism.

Prof. Otto Rössler has just released an enlarged version of his well-known paper: <Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “[gothic] R-theorem“ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric>. He reacts to the critique of Nicolai and others but corrects his study in another point that does not affect the essential conclusions: Nonexistence of Hawking radiation and hence no decay but stability of electrically neutral Micro-Black-Holes potentially produced at the LHC - with currently hard-to-predict growth-properties.

Probably Prof. Rossler will supply a revised version of the full gothic-R-study. He has sent us the slightly adapted conclusions in advance. The results express a global risk at the LHC now as before:

“What will remain if the main result can be confirmed? Four results are likely to persist:

1) Nonexistence of finished horizons for the outside world (so that only “almost black holes“ remain). This includes nonexistence of any spacetime elements beyond the horizon – including singularities – for the outside world.

2) Nonexistence of charged black holes.

3) Nonexistence of Hawking radiation.

4) Likely nonexistence of gravitational waves (owing to the global constancy of the speed of light c).”

“For this prediction implies that microscopic black holes generated on earth cannot evaporate in finite time – and hence put the planet at risk if earth-bound. In this way, an ethical dimension got suddenly attached to a pure-physics result.” (p. 16)

Concerning the “cosmic-ray-argument”, saying that the dense neutron stars would be the first victims of dangerous micro-black-holes of natural origin:“neutron stars seem to possess a special quantum protection against natural, cosmic ray-borne, very fast analogs to any miniblack holes potentially created on earth (superfluidity was the likely culprit).” (p. 16)

—————————-

Press-Info LHC-Kritik

On December 18, 2008, ‘LHC-Kritik’ has published its second ’statement’ to the European Court of Human Rights after the original complaint from August 08. This paper gives a generally understandable overview on the current state of the risk-debate concerning the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of CERN at Geneva. It also includes many scientific sources for any further occupation with the issue. Though great parts of it are English quotations, we try to provide a full English translation in January. Download on the main site.

There does exist a great, totally independently written analyzes now concerning the LHC-case. It was made by Prof. Eric. E. Johnson (University of North dakota, School of Law) It has very interdisciplinary implications even going beyond the special case. The analyzes also gives a suggestion how courts could handle complex questions about consequences of technique. In this sense, part 3 is the most important one, but all of them show a very profound approach:

One thing to mention: In his first articles, Prof. Johnson mainly refers to Prof. Otto E. Rössler and Dr. habil. Rainer Plaga as critics of the LHC-project. Of course, there do exist many more of critical papers, some more will be described in our new statement to the court, coming soon. Impressively, the analyzes also functions with Rössler and Plaga alone as the main examples.

2.: The panel-discussion last Saturday at the Austrian Academy of Sciences demonstrated high public interest and was generally very interesting. (See on the automatically translated website.) Prof. Wolfgang Kromp, the well-known director of the Institute for Risk-Evaluation, University of Vienna, suggested a special multi-disciplinary examination on the LHC.

——–

Press information, November 7, 2008

Pannel-discussion about CERN / LHC in the “Long Night of Science“ in Austria.

“NEWTON“-editor Markus Mooslechner was there live. In the “Long Night of Science“ he shows the best pictures and talks with phycisists in Vienna and at CERN and with one of the biggest critics of the project about the expensive experiment, the potential findings and the current state of research.

Regardless of the great technical damage at the LHC and regardless of the ongoing law-suit at the European Court of Human Rights, CERN holds an ‘Inauguration Party’ today.

Several actual studies from different scientists do exist, claiming global risks initiated by the intended experiments at the LHC. But safety is no official issue at the meeting.

Until now, no wide interdisciplinary risk-evaluation-studies do exist for a project of this dimension with an experimental nuclear-physical reactor.

Until now, the responsible politicians of the 20 CERN-member-states seem to neglect or fail to notice respectively even the reasonable wish for these studies as a minimum in this totally unregulated field.

Meanwhile, especially the informed public has got increasing concerns about the intended experiments.

Under these gambling-circumstances, the Roulette of Geneva should not start up in spring.

—

Like it’s the case with the super-collider, these are no interdisciplinary evaluations as well,

There are important scientific developments: Dr. Rainer Plaga, who stands in a well-considered scientific discourse with CERN about the catastrophic risk concerning possible micro-Black-Holes at the LHC, has now published an appendix to his study, taking the reply of CERN into consideration:

‘I stand to my general conclusion that there is a residual catastrophic risk frommetastable microscopic black holes produced at particle colliders.’

‘From these quotes I conclude: theories with extra dimensions robustly predictthe existence of microscopic collider-producible black holes and Hawking radiation.But the detailed decay properties presently remain very uncertain. Itthen seems important to study alternatives to the standard thermodynamicaltreatment of Hawking radiation on the safety issue. This is the aim of mypaper.’ (R. Plaga: ‘On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders’ 2008, page 11)

AN OFFICIAL DEMONSTRATION WILL TAKE PLACE ON NEXT SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27 AT 7 PM IN BREGENZ, VORARLBERG, AUSTRIA!

This will also be an information-event about the experimental nuclear Reactor LHC, including some symbolic actions: Physicists will be chasing Black Holes and so called ‘God-Particles’! Press and photographers are welcome. There will be a press-information.

Bregenz is close to the Swiss and German border. The demonstration will happen in the main traffic-free zone, starting at the GWL. This is only a few minutes from the main railway station. A journey by train or bus can be recommended.

CERN-press-informations say that the LHC is damaged more seriously than stated before. The reparations will last until spring 2009.

The international scientific network ‘LHC-Kritik’ supports a demonstration this Saturday in Bregenz, Vorarlberg, Austria. For Details see ‘Demo 27.9.08’ on this homepage. For further informations see ‘Kontakt’ on this homepage.

After short regular operation on Friday, a bigger accident happened at the LHC, a so called ‘quench’, the sudden heating of the magnets in the collider ring. A ton of liquid helium spilled out - vacuum loss. The LHC is slowly warmed up now to be repaired. Afterwards it is planned to cool the machine down again. All that will take about two month.

1.: The international scientific network ‘LHC-Kritik’ has today, September 18, renewed his complaint against CERN at the European Court of Human Rights. The summarizing text in German can be found in the attachement. For English please visit the official website of LHC-Kritik: www.LHC-concern.info

2.: As it came out now, the LHC is stopped down since week-end already!

They got problems with the cooling. So, if some 100 or thousand people at CERN could hide this until today, what will they do in some years in case they would find out that they produced stable Black Holes all the time?

CERN has launched this August 29, a hasty, just 2-sided and provisional “study” in which two authors refer to a recent and highly disturbing study of a scientist, Dr Rainer Plaga, whose work basically follows the same “semi-classical” approach, as CERN-safety reports do. CERN is reacting to Dr Plaga’s calculations (for the assumption of only one extra dimension), which predicts an explosion of the LHC, that would also directly threaten the city of Geneva. This production of an extremely radiating object, a so-called “semi-stable black hole” would be indestructible and unremoveable, with even short-term catastrophic and irreversible global consequences.

CERN’s short paper tries to find errors in Dr. Plaga’s scientific study and apparently intends to ensure the planned opening of the LHC on September 10 will occur without delay and to show it appear as safe.
The two contradicting studies can be found here: Dr Plaga’s paper is found on: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf

CERN’s reaction on:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.4087v1.pdfThe researchers opposed to the LHC are a group inspired around the well-known LHC-critic Prof. Otto Rössler (University of Tübingen) and others who elaborated a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. A total of 12 plus 1 critical points are given in the suit and it also includes a claim for interim measures to stop the experiment until the scientific clarification of the numerous open questions about global risks. The claim for interim measures was dismissed by the Court while the appeal is being studied in detail now.

The LHC-Kritik-Group has now presented the appeal to the public on its Internet site: www.LHC-concern.info and has met great media interest from all over the world. Markus Goritschnig MA, a spokesman for the group: “Maybe the CERN representatives go right in their response to this new study, but maybe not. The arguments of Dr Plaga surely can not immediately be scientifically analyzed by the authors of the study nor can Dr Plaga immediately react to the counter-arguments.

The CERN paper also covers only this actually mentioned black hole risk we additionally raised in our complaint, regardless of the other 12 main sections of arguments from different sources. In this expert dispute with an open end some interdisciplinary and external analyzes would be absolutely necessary to estimate the potential risks in a more objective way.”

An important CERN physicist recently said: “The way to stop all these arguments about whether the LHC is going to destroy the planet, is to get the LHC working.” Source: JR Ellis “The LHC is safe” CERN, Geneva, 2008-08-14 T16: 30:00 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/ quote at the end of the talk in 1:02:30) According to this statement CERN intends to cut off this expert debate through a potentially highly dangerous experiment.

The LHC-Kritik-group now appeals to the sense of responsibility of CERN, in the light of these thin “evidences” built on hypotheses and the ongoing discussion about the security aspect, to set a moratorium by itself to guarantee a serious scientific struggle to solve also the many other outstanding questions about the potential global risks. The critics also appeal to the responsible politicians of the 20 European member-states of CERN and to the Nobel-Price-Committee to recommend or respectively to grant an injunction of the opening on September 10 in that sense.

The now newly published CERN safety-report (September 5) is just the old one we already took into consideration in our complaint. Our argumentation has not seriously been countered.

On Friday, August 29, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the claim for interim measures to stop the LHC operating until the numerous scientific questions about the possible global risks are solved.

This decision came very fast. There is principally no explanation given for this. It could have several reasons, also purely juristic reasons like jurisdiction and others. The Court is studying the whole appeal in detail now. Only the claim for interim measures was rejected, not the appeal itself.

There will be a press conference soon, please contact us for further details.

Read the automatically translated website and the appeal here (it will be corrected as soon as we find the time)

Comments

As promised by the Director-General, we will start a series of regular updates detailing the status of the LHC repairs, consolidation and commissioning.

As of last week all magnets in the damaged area of sector 3-4 have been removed and raised to the surface. In total 39 dipoles and 14 short straight sections are now on the surface. Four replacement magnets have been lowered and installed, and by the end of this week this figure should total seven. Cold testing replacement magnets in SM18 has resumed after the Christmas shutdown. The civil engineering work to repair the slight damage to the concrete has been completed. Outside the damaged area the Vacuum Group are cleaning some of the beam screens in situ.

Both sector 1-2 and sector 5-6 are also now at room temperature and accessible. As well as routine maintenance in these sectors, one magnet from sector 1-2 which was found to have high resistance (approximately 100 nano-ohms, two orders of magnitude higher than the specified resistance) has been removed and is on the surface ready to be opened and investigated.

How could Mark Buchanan have committed such oversight? Well, this may put him in the same company as Prof Stephen Hawking, the 2003 CERN safety group view (though not of 2008).

The central issue is that with the lhc it is possible that sub earth escape velocity micro black holes could emerge. Every pro lhc safety paper has acknowledged that this COULD NOT HAPPEN WITH COSMIC RAYS.

However every pro lhc paper safety relies on different, mutually contradictory views on the accretion mechanisms and non agreement on luminosity or evaporation rates of mbh’s.

This demonstrates that there is NO CERTAINTY concerning the evaporation/ luminosity and accretion rate of micro black holes.